Vladimir, We don't write length because be don't know it in advance. Sounds like you're proposing to marshal the message first and then copy it to the write buffer. But that's actually our previous implementation and the whole purpose of direct serialization was to avoid this copy.
The optimization for writes sounds interesting, though. -Val On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Writes can be optimized even further: > 1) Write to *ByteBuffer *as long as there is a place in it. > 2) When it is full - invoke a callback which will submit it to the socket, > reset position to 0, and continue marshaling. > > This way we can probably get rid of write "state" at all. > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > I went through our so-called "direct serialization" and appears to be not > > very efficient to me. We never write message length. As a result we have > to > > constantly track what was written and what was not, and whether we have a > > room for the next write. The same goes for reader. As a result even > single > > "writeInt" is surrounded with multiple checks and writes. > > > > It looks like we can make our algorithm much more simple, straightforward > > and efficient if we add two things to every message: > > - Message length > > - Flag indicating whether it was written fully or not. > > > > If message was written fully to the buffer, we do no need to perform any > > checks during deserialization. To read int it is enough to call > > *ByteBuffer.getInt()*. To read byte array it is enough to call > > *ByteBuffer.getByte()*, etc. Simple and fast. > > > > And only if message was split into pieces on either send or receive > sides, > > which should not happen often, we may want to fallback to current > > implementation. Or may be we may copy such message to a separate buffer > > and still read them without any boundaries checks and "incrementStates". > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Vladimir. > > >
